[SQL] Potential bug in postgres 8.2.4

2007-05-24 Thread Tomas Doran

I'm not sure if this is a bug, or not - but it looks like one to me.

if you say:

CREATE TABLE testtable (
col1   char(1),
   data   text
);

INSERT INTO testtable (col1, data) VALUES ('1', 'foobar');
INSERT INTO testtable (col1, data) VALUES ('2', 'foobarbaz');

The following queries all work:
INSERT INTO testtable (col1, data) VALUES (3::int, 'foobarbazquux');
SELECT * FROM testtable WHERE col1 = 3::int;
SELECT * FROM testtable WHERE col1 IN (1);
SELECT * FROM testtable WHERE col1 IN (1::int);

However these querys fail on 8.2.4, but work correctly on 8.1:
SELECT * FROM testtable WHERE col1 IN (1::int, 2::int);
SELECT * FROM testtable WHERE col1 IN (1, 2);

I could understand if the behavior was the same for single element IN  
clauses, and multiple element IN clauses - however as their behavior  
is different, and it used to work in 8.1


Cheers
Tom

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

  http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq


Re: [SQL] Potential bug in postgres 8.2.4

2007-05-24 Thread Tomas Doran


On 24 May 2007, at 12:34, Marcin Stępnicki wrote:


Dnia Thu, 24 May 2007 12:20:54 +0100, Tomas Doran napisał(a):


CREATE TABLE testtable (
 col1   char(1),
data   text
);

INSERT INTO testtable (col1, data) VALUES ('1', 'foobar'); INSERT  
INTO

testtable (col1, data) VALUES ('2', 'foobarbaz');

The following queries all work:
INSERT INTO testtable (col1, data) VALUES (3::int, 'foobarbazquux');
SELECT * FROM testtable WHERE col1 = 3::int; SELECT * FROM  
testtable WHERE

col1 IN (1); SELECT * FROM testtable WHERE col1 IN (1::int);

However these querys fail on 8.2.4, but work correctly on 8.1:  
SELECT *
FROM testtable WHERE col1 IN (1::int, 2::int); SELECT * FROM  
testtable

WHERE col1 IN (1, 2);

I could understand if the behavior was the same for single element IN
clauses, and multiple element IN clauses - however as their  
behavior is

different, and it used to work in 8.1


I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but it seems that you are
comparing apples to oranges here (integer and character values).


Yep, totally - it's not nice, but we need to do it at $ork for  
hysterical raisins..


In the short term, adding the appropriate cast (in our code) isn't an  
option...


If I can do something to make it work in the postgres backend, then  
that'd be acceptable, and I'm investigating that..



I am a
big fan of weakly typed languages like Python myself, but this  
situation
is different. I'd say that PostgreSQL 8.1 did a cast somewhere  
"behind the

scenes" but personally I think it is a bad idea. Consider:

SELECT * FROM testtable WHERE col1::int IN (1, 2);

instead.


Yes, indeed - however I think it's a bug as 'SELECT * FROM testtable  
WHERE col1 IN (1)' DOES work, but 'SELECT * FROM testtable WHERE col1  
IN (1, 2)' does NOT work..


This is, at the very least, is a glaring inconsistency around how IN  
clauses are handled in different situations.


If this was a deliberate tightning of the behavior, is there a  
changelog entry/link to come docs about when this change happened  
that anyone can point me to?


Cheers
Tom

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
  choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
  match


Re: [SQL] Potential bug in postgres 8.2.4

2007-05-24 Thread Tomas Doran


On 24 May 2007, at 13:19, Richard Huxton wrote:


Tomas Doran wrote:

On 24 May 2007, at 12:34, Marcin Stępnicki wrote:


I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but it seems that you  
are

comparing apples to oranges here (integer and character values).
Yep, totally - it's not nice, but we need to do it at $ork for  
hysterical raisins..
In the short term, adding the appropriate cast (in our code) isn't  
an option...
If I can do something to make it work in the postgres backend,  
then that'd be acceptable, and I'm investigating that..


Well, if I were you, I'd just stick with 8.1 until you can fix the  
application.


That would be a great idea, however we have several live clients who  
have been upgraded (with entire QA and customer QA phases of testing)  
before we found this. So we're now stuffed :)


Yes, indeed - however I think it's a bug as 'SELECT * FROM  
testtable WHERE col1 IN (1)' DOES work, but 'SELECT * FROM  
testtable WHERE col1 IN (1, 2)' does NOT work..
This is, at the very least, is a glaring inconsistency around how  
IN clauses are handled in different situations.


What's biting you is the overly-loose matching against a single  
item (or all in 8.1). Most of the problems with PG seem to be where  
checks weren't strict enough in a previous version.


The tightening in general is biting me, but if the answer was 'it was  
deliberate tightening', and the behavior was consistent, then we'd  
have just dealt with it - it's the in-consistent behavior that makes  
me think this is a bug (or at least a gotcha, as it's not what you  
expect)...




If this was a deliberate tightning of the behavior, is there a  
changelog entry/link to come docs about when this change happened  
that anyone can point me to?


My guess is that 8.2 is planning this by converting your IN into an  
array and testing against that. Actually, I can test that:


That was my guess too - but I'm having a bad day and haven't got any  
further in playing with it than posted, thanks.


I'll be looking through the source / changelogs this afternoon and  
work out when/why this started happening.



EXPLAIN ANALYSE SELECT * FROM foo WHERE a IN (1::char,2::char);
  QUERY PLAN
-- 
-
 Seq Scan on foo  (cost=0.00..36.12 rows=21 width=5) (actual  
time=0.029..0.033 rows=2 loops=1)

   Filter: (a = ANY ('{1,2}'::bpchar[]))
 Total runtime: 0.085 ms
(3 rows)

Yep. I don't think you can work round this by adding an implicit  
cast - only solution would be to hack the ANY code I suspect.


Our DB driver does the right thing with quoting the values for us if  
we use a later version than the one we're running. This may be the  
solution we take..


The idea of hacking in the ANY code and then running the server in  
our production environment scares me ;)


Cheers
Tom


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [SQL] Potential bug in postgres 8.2.4

2007-05-24 Thread Tomas Doran


On 24 May 2007, at 15:51, Tom Lane wrote:


Tomas Doran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

The tightening in general is biting me, but if the answer was 'it was
deliberate tightening', and the behavior was consistent, then we'd
have just dealt with it - it's the in-consistent behavior that makes
me think this is a bug (or at least a gotcha, as it's not what you
expect)...


The direction of the future is that *all* those queries are going to
fail, because they're relying on an implicit integer-to-text  
conversion,

and its days are numbered.  That might happen as soon as 8.3:




That's no bad thing.


I think the reason this particular behavior changed in 8.2 is the
re-implementation of multi-element IN tests as ScalarArrayOps;
but it's part of an intentional long-term tightening of SQL semantics,
and you're not going to get far with a proposal to revert it.


I wasn't suggesting reverting it - just that lists of one element  
being treated differently to lists of >1 element is not what I  
expected :)



Fix your code.


Easier said than done, but thankfully also not strictly my problem.

We have found that a newer database driver version does 'the right  
thing' for us by quoting the values in the IN () list.


Our reason for not upgrading is that this driver connects using the  
v8 protocol, and ergo logs an error when connecting to our legacy  
postgres 7.2 databases (the error is logged in the DB backend as it  
doesn't understand the v8 protocol). Yes, we are a million years  
behind in upgrading - it's underway currently...


The number of machines using the db / making connections causes the  
volumes of errors seen in the server logs to go totally mental, so we  
can't use the new driver with the legacy DBs


The current plan is to rebuild our 7.2 server to just remove this  
error message, and upgrade the database driver - as that wins us a  
lot of other things too.


Thanks for the swift and comprehensive response guys!

Cheers
Tom


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly